>
> My point is that just because you don't have regard or agree with
one
> particular individual of a political party does not automatically
nullify
> all your sensitivity or goodness or worth. It's just an individual
right to
> choose. Concerns about corporate greed and the environment are not
the sole
> province of the left and it is really unfair for one group to think
they are
> the only ones with a claim to goodness. I'm not referring to you
> specifically Mark, because I've always thought of you as one of the
more
> fair and balanced people I've ever met.
>
> Kakki
>
The lines seem to become more blurred all the time, don't they?
I doubt that Joni subscribes to any particular political party or
group either here or in Canada. Joni strikes me as much too
independent in her thinking to go along completely with any one
philosophy or religion or train of political thought. She takes
whatever truth she discerns in everything she learns about & forms her
own ideas & opinions.
For the record, my brother is staunchly Republican. He voted for
Reagan & Bush and even admits to voting for Nixon. I make it a rule
never to discuss politics with him. Partly because I love him, partly
because I have to honestly admit that I don't keep myself that
well-informed. So as a general rule I don't join in political
discussions.
I will say that I recognized a lot of the anger that was in Clark's
post about political parties as being deeply ingrained in myself as
well. Watch the film 'The Band Played On' or read the book some time.
That's part of what makes me lean one direction rather than the other.
But I certainly don't think my brother is evil. I enjoy his company &
we seem to love & appreciate each other at this point of our lives
more than we ever have. I also don't think he wants to take away my
civil rights or would be against my having the right to marry Travis.
Quite frankly, when I do take the time to listen to the evening news
or read a newspaper article about a candidate or issue, I don't know
what to believe anymore. There is so much 'spin' on everything -
statistics can be slanted or distorted to fit almost anyone's point of
view. In that regard, the debates were a farce, as far as I'm
concerned. And I've gotten to where I almost don't believe *anything*
that is in a political ad. Here in Washington state the senatorial
race between Maria Cantwell & incumbent Slade Gorton is also 'too
close to call' and probably won't be decided for some time. During
the last few weeks before the election, Cantwell ran an ad saying that
Gorton was in favor of a proposed open pit goldmine in central
Washington that would use an extraction process involving cyanide.
The ad showed an explosion on a mountainside and then cut to footage
of children as concern was expressed about cyanide polluting the
water. Gorton followed this up with an ad that said 'Maria Cantwell
is losing and is saying desperate things. Now she is saying that
Slade Gorton wants to blow up mountains & poison children.' That may
not be an exact quote but it's pretty damn close to the voice over for
Gorton's ad.
Both of these ads were blatant attempts to push emotional buttons.
How much truth is in either one of them? How can a voter make an
informed choice with all the spin & emotional rhetoric coming from
both sides? Yes, both sides. I have to agree with Kakki on that one.
I don't know that I even trust the media any more than I trust the
politicians.
Mark in Seattle
